Why Disney? Or Episode One: The Phantom Mouse

[danielromens]

Hey Kids, since we have so many varried opinions on the subject, I thought it would be fun to start a post for the Mouse Wars. I personally am quite anti Disney in regards to a Muppet sale and would looove to play devil's advocate to anything you can toss at me and I'm sure a few other's would too.

Don't get me wrong I think Disney can do some good things here and there, but they can also put out some craptacular product as well. Bigger ain't always better, and either is quantity.

In the words of Mils Lane, "Let's get it on!"

[danielromens]

I'm going cheeseball and kicking off my own post.

first swing for the Rebels.

Three words people.

PAN AND SCAN!

[silverbolt101]

well here are my two cents , corparations like disney and even what henson co. has become , do not hve any respect for there greatest assets which would be there artists .the biggest piece of evidence to supprtr that would be the recent layoffs of animators at disney , and an even more startiling layoff of some of the most tallented puppet builders and designers at henson.I am talking about people with nearly thirty years of expirience.

sure they say that moneys tight and they need to cut costs, but exactly how many of thier useless vice presidents and so called "creative executives" did they layoff?

last count was 0.

anyway while i agree that disney would kill the muppets, some one better sweep in and save them before that charlie rivkin kills them first.

dreamworks or pixar i hope you are out there

[frogboy4]

I have never been or will ever be much of a Disney supporter for anything, but...

The allegations of Disney being a big corporation that exploits its characters for profit is true - but so do all other companies of its financial stature so that can not be the criteria to judge the sale. And the price tag of the Muppets is too high for anyone else but a large company so we are looking at a Disney, AOL, Viacom or possibly Fox buyout. Rivkin just doesn't seem to have the funds so he seems to be out of the equation.

If you think that the other companies won't exploit the Muppets for gain, you are kidding yourself. It's the nature of the entertainment business. The question really is - what will the company do with the Muppets once they have been merchandised to death - Disney will likely keep them around for generations to enjoy while Viacom or Time Warner may hide them away.

About the pan and scan debate - I'm with you there. It totally disgusts me how they have cropped MTI and MCC. But on the future upside - eventually things will turn to widescreen and the debate will be moot. We are thinking of long term here.

I think it is best that a big American company owns them - it's what Jim wanted initially and will assure their longevity. And promotion is what Disney does best. Just my view.

[Bean Bunny]

Disney:
*Imagengeering
* Animation
* Consumer Division
* Disney Archieves
* ABC,ABC Family, ESPN Channels, Disney Channel, Toon Disney.
* Lilo & Stitch. Nuff Said.
* Kim Possible

[BoyRaisin2]

Two words: Well said.

Four more words: Don't mess with Texas.

Three more words: I am bulletproof.

Four more words: Not gonna do it.

Hey, I'm kinda happy, I got my research paper done.

[frogboy4]

To DreamWorks’ credit they do have a sizeable film and animation division. I just think they're too new for the Muppets. They haven't had enough time to really prove themselves as a company. They don't have a theme park either and after the lackluster results of Spirit (that I saw coming from a mile away) I don't think they'll be up for spending much money. Disney is the big fish here and I agree - as long as the Muppets are going to be bought by a big company they deserve the best.

[ZootandDingo]

Originally posted by frogboy4
To DreamWorks’ credit they do have a sizeable film and animation division. I just think they're too new for the Muppets. They haven't had enough time to really prove themselves as a company.

I agree. Dreamworks seems like they would be the right place for Henson, but it's still too early to see if they will stick around or if they will go the way of the Orion. As cool as it would be to see Henson owned by Spielberg (you know how much of a stickler he is about filmmakers' creative rights), they just don't look like they can support an entire separate production company yet.

I don't think whether or not if a studio owns a theme park really makes a difference nowadays, especially since Universal Studios' parks have ties with Warner, Columbia, King Features, Marvel, Geffen and Amblin (in other words, now Dreamworks), and Viacom; Disney/MGM Studios with Disney (gasp), MGM (gasp), Lucasfilm, and Fox; Paramount's parks with Viacom (of course) and Warner; and Warner Bros.' international Movie Worlds and their controlling interest in Six Flags.

No matter who gets Henson, if any of the top brass has any brains, the Muppets would have no trouble finding a home at a theme park.

[BoyRaisin2]

Since we're kinda on the subject, what IS Spielberg's relationships with Amblin and DreamWorks? Are they the same company? Is Amblin at Universal? Is Spielberg still with Amblin? I'm just kind of confused.

[frogboy4]

Speilberg is one of the three partners of Dreamworks and I believe he still has a stake in Amblin, but it is seperate from Dreamworks. From what I've gleaned, no new projects come from Amblin. It's just the label that he used before teaming up with Geffen and Katzenberg. However, Amblin was in part responsible for the reissue of ET, but that's considered old material. There could be more to it, but that's all I know.

[danielromens]

Again let me remind folks of what the good people at disney did around the original sale. If you recall a brochure ready "Disney's Muppets" was out for their arrival to the park. This is after Jim's Death and before a final sale. I'm sure they'll keep the name around huh?

[Phillip Chapman]

"Disney's Muppets" was being used in promotional material as well.

[Luke]

Yeah but lets put this in context, through the wonders of a little something called 'forward planning', if Disney were using 'Disneys Muppets' in that short a time after Jim's death, he would likely have known about it before he died.

As for the Henson name remaining - i think its a little different now. At that time the Muppets were more a current brand, now they are considered a little more nostalgic and of course, Jim's name is still a big draw. I really doubt they'd ditch it as it now has a kind of legendary status. People seem to just want to badmouth Disney on their exploits of long ago (and thats fine with me) but you should consider some of the plus points too. They've just done superb work on the MTI DVD, actually producing new extra matierial, commentary etc for a film they could have just put out on its own. Does that not show they are attempting to treat the Muppets with some respect when they could have put the money into 'Pinochio 6' or whatever else they are producing themselves ?

This is the kind of thing that p*ssed me off about the Jim Hill article - if there was ONE thing that showed that Disney were wooing the Henson company then it was the fact they actually worked with JHC for the first time in ages to produce new muppet matierial for that DVD but did it get a single mention ? Nope !

[ZootandDingo]

Originally posted by Phillip Chapman
"Disney's Muppets" was being used in promotional material as well.

I apologize if this was already discussed at some point, but is that why Henson took action against Disney and thus killing the original deal? I know the deal was aborted for a variety of reasons such as the loss of Jim, but I'm curious what the Henson company's major complaint was?

I thought when I first heard about it that the problem was Disney was starting to sell Muppet products in stores without the okay from Henson, but back then matters of business were not much to keep my ear glued to the television, so I can't say I bothered to learn much more than that at the time.

What were the specifics of Henson's problem?

[frogboy4]

The bit I know about it concerns the sizeable slashing of Disney's asking price after Jim's death. Under the deal he had much creative control over the Muppets but could retire anytime. The deal hadn't been completed before he died and their was a lawsuit against Disney for changing their asking price. It was all rather tacky on Disney's part in my opinion. They still had to settle out of court so I'm sure they would have played their cards differently had they known the outcome. Henson Co had liquidated much of their licensing deals so that's why it was so hard for them to bounce back and why it was difficult to locate Muppet stuff. That's about all I know.

[Blind Pew]

Originally posted by frogboy4
I have never been or will ever be much of a Disney supporter for anything, but...
If you think that the other companies won't exploit the Muppets for gain, you are kidding yourself. It's the nature of the entertainment business. The question really is - what will the company do with the Muppets once they have been merchandised to death - Disney will likely keep them around for generations to enjoy while Viacom or Time Warner may hide them away.

So true........ and if they merchandise them to death, believe me, I'll buy.

[radionate]

Jim Hill wrote some really interesting stuff on the Disney/Henson relationship at www.laughingplace.com (http://)

It gives a little insite into the buisness side of the relationship, and the ultimate downfall.

[Janice & Mokey's Man]

I just wanna stay in my own li'l world where I can enjoy classic Disney and classic Muppets and nothin' bad ever happens. :)

[beaker]

disney pros:
best darn looking new edgy 2d/2.5d animated features
and 3d features. (who are the competition kidding...spirit, shrek, ice age, blechh!) disney has dug themselves out of that horrific cliched bad animation hole from the 90's(ie: the stale save the princess two talking sidekicks and a emperor...worked fine with aladdin...but then pocahontas, hunchback, mulan, hurcules...ugh)
and into the more hip vein(ie: emperor's new groove rocked)
So theyve shown they can finally change.

cons: the absolute destruction of a property
look what they did to the great nightmare before christmas merchandise. and we all know roger rabbit is really half time warner, being as virtually more than half the characters are
looney tunes. As everyone would agree, limited partnership with Disney has worked and will work, but an all out buyout might not work. But after the emtv(eMpTyV?) fiasco, perhaps anything is better. Folks, were talking about the much anticipated glorious and triumphant return of the Muppets...which company is going to help make that happen?

Finally, I do have my doubts about the others. Viacom has the cool as heck invader zim, and warner owns the matrix franchise.
so that makes me happy...but would they have the skills to really push the Muppets into a glory not seen since the 80's?
Fox has shown its maligned ill begotten tastes with sludge like greg the bunny, and the gillions of horrific 'reality' tv specials.

I expect we'll find out whoever it is by year's end, and hopefully by mfest2(which Im hoping to hear about on here soon)

:: beaker ::

[frogboy4]

I get your point but I have to disagree with your comments about Shrek and Ice Age (I won't even see Spirit, though).

Shrek fared even better at the box office than Monsters Inc (also a good film) and Ice Age made a mint as well - breaking records in its opening weekend.

I don't predict that Lilo and Stitch will do that well - it just looks icky to me and I can't imagine myself buying a ticket and sitting through it.

That being said, I agree that Disney is still the best bet for the Muppets. I just didn't agree with the other stuff you said. Everyone I've met enjoyed both Ice Age and Shrek. ;)

[radionate]

I have to agree with Beaker on Shrek. I'm one of the only people I know who didn't really enjoy it all that much. I thought Monsters Inc. was far better (but nothing will ever touch Toy Story 2 IMHO)

:D

[frogboy4]

I just never enjoyed the Toy Story films that much. Monsters Inc had some spectacular craftmanship, but it played the kids angle too much for my taste. I dod enjoy it and one can't beat the modeling, but I like Shrek much better. It spoke to more than just the kids and that's what I like in an animated film.

[radionate]

I see your point. I guess I just thought Shrek went for cheap laughs at times. I just don't know what it is about the film that I don't like. I've never been able to put my finger on it. I am interested to see what the sequel will be like. I'm hoping it will focus on more of the fairy tale folk. That's my absolute favorite part of the movie. There are tons of subtle jokes that you have to search out in the scenes. I love the fact that Peter Pan is in the background turning in Tinkerbell!!!!

[Thog]

Originally posted by radionate
\ I am interested to see what the sequel will be like. I'm hoping it will focus on more of the fairy tale folk. \

Here is what they have to say about the sequel.

The film picks up right where the first movie ended... Shrek and Fiona return from their honeymoon to find a letter from Fiona's parents inviting the newlyweds over for dinner. The only problem is that they have no idea that their daughter is now an ogre.

[radionate]

Originally posted by Thog


Here is what they have to say about the sequel.

The film picks up right where the first movie ended... Shrek and Fiona return from their honeymoon to find a letter from Fiona's parents inviting the newlyweds over for dinner. The only problem is that they have no idea that their daughter is now an ogre.

Who is "they", and please tell me "they" are kidding. What are they going to call it, Shreks Whose Coming To Dinner?

[frogboy4]

This sequel doesn't sound too great to me, but I never thought I'd like the first one so much.

[Janice & Mokey's Man]

Originally posted by radionate


Who is "they", and please tell me "they" are kidding. What are they going to call it, Shreks Whose Coming To Dinner?

Oh man, this reminds me of a great gag on "Designing Women" about that movie...*snickers*

You go, Suzanne! :D

[Blind Pew]

Originally posted by Thog


The only problem is that they have no idea that their daughter is now an ogre.

Is she an ogre?

PS. Thog, I LOVE your avatar of Patsy!

Cheers Sweetie Darling

[Smig]

From the CHINA DAILY NEWS (Via CARTOON RESEARCH) Disney skimps on animation

LOS ANGELES: The Walt Disney Co, which built its international fame on animated features, is cutting corners on the quality of its latest products to save money, animators charge.

They say the company's cost-cutting includes skimping on the quality of straight-to-video sequels of popular Disney features and executives meddling with the creative process.

The company has recently taken other cost-cutting measures, such as closing 50 retail stores, cutting operating hours at theme parks, reducing movie studio costs and eliminating 4,000 jobs to counteract the effects of a sluggish economy.

"They don't have long-term plans to keep traditional artists. I hear how unfair and how 'un-American' it is, but the bottom line is that the corporation doesn't care. If laying people off is what they have to do, they'll do it. There is no family, it's a ruthless shark tank," said Steve Hulett, business representative of the Motion Picture Screen Cartoonist Local 839.

Animator Brian Mitchell is selling T-shirts online saying "No more cheapquels!" - his term for the cheap, animated sequels that Disney has produced for the straight-to-video market.

While the company banks on the public's recognition of "Cinderella" and "Peter Pan," its sequels have weaker characters and story lines and are made with lower quality animation and with budgets at a fraction of the cost of the original films, animators say.

Smig

[Phillip Chapman]

Smig thanks for sharing the story with us! Interesting stuff.

[Janice & Mokey's Man]

Originally posted by Smig
While the company banks on the public's recognition of "Cinderella" and "Peter Pan," its sequels have weaker characters and story lines and are made with lower quality animation and with budgets at a fraction of the cost of the original films, animators say.

No comment.

Except that is 100% correct.

[frogboy4]

The fact that they made a Little Mermaid 2 still upsets me. :(

[Luke]

The fact they made a Little Mermaid still upsets me. :mad:

[frogboy4]

Oh, I loved The Little Mermaid. It is my favorite Disney animated film and it revamped Disney's image and animation division. A very important film.

[danielromens]

Hey luke,

i've not yet seen the dvd and have not seen the new stuff what is it. and is it really all that great. Yeah they work together these days, which weirds me out, but even still. Different or not they were Jim Henson's Muppets not Disneys, they didn't create them. And he DIED, regardless we didn't see these things until after he passed. He died and they put them out anyway. the thought of that p*sses me right out the friggin door. I'm actually a little bitter about it. What a total lack of respect.


I once read in an article that came out while things were going sour that there was a puppet of Micheal Eisner being eaten by a monster in the New York Workshop.

Back to the thread....I also don't feel like Disney has the backing of it's product that people think. Granted their shows are still on air in Toon Disney. but that's because it's an entire channel devoted to THEIR WORK. I don't see any new darkwing duck merch around. but he's still syndicated on their channel. It fills a time slot for a channel of their cartoons. Go figure. For every project that they've backed and supposedly supported, there are a ton of others that they've thrown to the wayside.

[frogboy4]

I'm still a little bitter about Disney's behavior after Jim Henson died as well. However, I don't think many other companies of their stature would have handled things much differently. I could be wrong.

The difference between Darkwing Duck and the Muppets is that Darkwing's fame lasted a few years as the Muppets have spanned decades. I doubt they would ever shelve Kermit. The only real cause for conern is that they'll release too much - or that we'll get The Greatest Muppet Caper, The Muppets Take Manhattan Again or Return to Muppet Treasure Island. I cringe at the thought, but I still feel the "big fish" should win out over the other large companies. :)

[danielromens]

I of course understand your respect for the larger company, but with so many characters already are they really the best. I walked into a Disney Story lately and their was so much Pooh stuff it almost made me wet my own pants. They had monochrome pink pooh dolls, book of pooh dolls, pooh dolls in various costumes, classic pooh, disney pooh. It was total over kill and the products weren't even that great. Sad really.

Personally I think the Muppets would benefit more with a company that has a lot of money but not as many brandname characters to worry about. This would grant for a lot more care and emphasis on them, without as much contention from characters within the same company.

[frogboy4]

I can understand what you are saying but I still think that the Muppets will likely go to a big company with a large stock of characters if not Disney. They really are the biggest candidate even if many fans don't.

It is incredibly unlikely that some sort of company as you have mentioned would pick up the Muppets as they will come at an expensive price. The only serous contenders I see are Fox, Dreamworks, AOL/Time Warner and Disney. It would be nice if a smaller family run type of company, but I just don't see it happening and I think there would be much less product in that case.

I don't understand what you are saying about Pooh merchandise. I live near a Disney store and I think Pook is well represented. Yes there's a lot of stuff, but he is incredibly popular - more so than Mickey these days. If that happened to Kermit, Gonzo and the gang I would be in heaven! I especially like the classic Pooh products. It shows that the company has some idea of an extended market for Pooh products. I just don't see what you mean in that arguement, but maybe I just disagree. That case could be made for other Disney characters though. The Monsters Inc Disney plushes were a little lack-luster.

[Luke]

Daniel :-

Yeah the new DVD stuff is great - a commentary with Brian and Dave, but Rizzo and Gonzo interupt it to show extra clips, then a featurette where Rizzo and Gonzo present from the actual Henson screening room. The menus are apparently very cool too. I think this is all worthy stuff and the two companies seem to be working well - though Hensons themselves likely produced most of it and just passed it to Disney but still, it shows communication.

As for Jim, yeah the Disney's "Muppets" thing as soon as he died was in bad taste, i'm just thinking that these things take a lot of planning so likely he knew about it and it was too late to stop from happening in certain cases once he died. I could be wrong though - there are others who might know for sure what was going on there.

I'm always seeing many mentions of Dreamworks as a possible bidder for JHC - in actual fact it was just a theory someone here had years ago, i don't think Dreamworks have ever been interested or are involved in the sale process. It's more Disney, Time Warner, Viacom, Rivkin, News Corp, Hit Entertainment, Cosgrove and a few others.

[frogboy4]

I stand corrected on Dreamworks. I guess it just got bounced around so much it started to have a ring to it.

The Muppet Treasure Island DVD is definitely worth buying IMHO. The addition of the extra bits was really a shock. Could this be Disney playing nice? That is something that is a topic for debate. My opinion on the lack of widescreen has been noted and has lost many points with me. I feel the film transfer should come first, but it is an otherwise good DVD. I'm surprised the Disney bean counters spent the extra pennies on this release (even though actual material was obviously Henson produced).

I just have to own the complete set and wait in years to come for the re-issue for the widescreen. It really is important with this film. Heck - I'm a widescreen guy through and through. Even my computer monitor is widescreen. :)

[Luke]

<<Could this be Disney playing nice? That is something that is a topic for debate. >>

EXACTLY Jamie, i think you hit the nail on the head. This is the first clear factual example we have of Disney 'playing nice' with Henson for some time - yet we have that other article from Jim Hill with all the imaginary stuff.

I wonder what Diz are gonna do with MCC ?

[frogboy4]

I hear that MCC was shot in a different aspect ratio that would make cropping less distractng, though I hope it's still widescreen (unlikely). If I remember corectly there was a featurette for that too. I bet it will be close to the MTI disc.

[Luke]

Yeah i bet it will be similar to MTI too - it's a totally brand new MTI featurette on the disc isn't it ? So maybe they'll edit a brand new one for MCC too.

The one thing i didn't get about the MTI disc is that Steve Whitmire didn't appear on the commentary as himself, though Rizzo is there on the DVD, and Dave is on the commentary as himself and performing Gonzo. I guess maybe they thought threee voices (incl Brian) might be confusing ?

[frogboy4]

To be honest, the commentary is great but it didn't seem as thought out as in other DVDs so this could be the reason that Whitmire, Goelz etc didn't appear on the track along with Brian.

The MTI featurette is not really new. It appears to be a mixtrue of previous bits from the Disney Channel and various press junkets mixed in with a few new shots. The new stuff consists of cutaways with Gonzo and Rizzo (with an appearance by Steve and Dave) and a very brief snip of Bill.

I don't mean to put the featurette down in anyway, but you know as well as I do what regurgitated material looks like. It seemed a bit rushed too, but I did enjoy it very much. Not enough real behind the scenes footage for me - mostly talking heads. I'm sure you get the gist. I am happy they included anything at all, but I still feel those who are calling it the best Muppet DVD ever is an exaggeration. It's the 3rd best IMHO behind TMM and MFS (DVD not the film iteslf). I found the camera tests and bloopers in those to be more interesting than the featurette in MTI.

[CrockAlley]

Thing that worries me: Whether Disney, Sony, Viacom, NewsCorp, or Time Warner, I cannot support any of it. These corporations are the five largest in the world. There is great difficulty in finding any media (movies, TV, etc) not connected (read: owned) to one of these corporations. And the freakiest thing is that they have dealings with each other.
My point is that with so much control over the media industry, any one of these giants would have significantly less interest in producing quality work than a smaller (read: independant) business.

Above all, it's a moral issue for me. To think that 90% of our media exposure comes from only five sources sickens me.
I could go on, but I won't.

Read this anti media monopoly propaganda! (http://www.mediaspace.org/MMI/mmi_frame.html)

[uncleduke]

Originally posted by frogboy4
To DreamWorks’ credit they do have a sizeable film and animation division. I just think they're too new for the Muppets. They haven't had enough time to really prove themselves as a company. They don't have a theme park either and after the lackluster results of Spirit (that I saw coming from a mile away) I don't think they'll be up for spending much money. Disney is the big fish here and I agree - as long as the Muppets are going to be bought by a big company they deserve the best.

Here is where we disagree....
Although Disney is the biggest fish in the pond, I do not think they are the best.
I think if they aquire the Muppets, they (the Muppets) will be Cinderella to Disney's Stepmother and sisters.
They will not stick the risky concepts with their proven comodities, they will toss those bones to the Muppets. And if the product is a success, it will be because of the genius' at Disney... and guess who will be blamed for the failure of and of these products? Yup, Kermit and company (aren't there like 3 talking dog movies in production right now?).

I would prefer them to go to Dreamworks where they will be treated not only as equals, but with respect.

>>>They haven't had enough time to really prove themselves as a company<<<

Four Words
Academy Award Winner: Shrek (loser Monsters Inc)
Dreamworks beat the mouse once, C'mon do it again!!!

[frogboy4]

I have to admit to being quite pleased when Shrek won over Monsters inc. Others have flamed me for my views on this, but I still feel it was the better all-around film.

I have uneasy feelings about Dreamworks though. I don't have as much faith that it will be around in coming decades as I do that Disney will be. I do know what you are saying though. I have been a very outspoken critic of Disney for most of my life. As for poor project decisions - Disney may not help out much in that department, but Henson green-lighted Buddy, MFS, Jack and other disappointments on their own. That and I have really become unimpressed with Spielberg and Katzenberg in recent years. I do get your point - and I woudn't be unhappy if the Muppets went Dreamworks.

[Muppets1985]

Ahhhggg!! Sheck don't make me sick!!! I m not saying this b/c im a Disney Freek im just saying this b/c the movie was NOT funny at all to me, i didn't even crack a :) so we re-turend the dvd back! Steven and the mr. K guy DO NOT imperss me one bit, look Mr. K STILL takes creddit for the Lion King and Aladdin , we have talked about that over at laughingPlace.com.

Just look at that sisie movie DreamWorks has put out "Speart" (or how ever u spell the darn thing! lol) I don't like that animation my self, sick-an-ing to moi. DreamWorks r all so "TRYTING" to fallow in Disney steps i here every now and then, Aggghhh Sheck 2 i think im sick know!

As i been saying for the past year Disney IS STILL the BEST!!!!

[uncleduke]

I wouldn't even mind seeing a dark horse candidate like Universal cone in from behind.....
They did a great job with the Dr. Seuss theme park, it would be fun to see what they did with the Muppets.